Mr. Speaker, this government spent $130 million on its advertising campaign. The worst part is that such advertising is ineffective. Surveys show that 60% of respondents refused to give the messages a positive grade. When will the government allow its advertising spending to be studied by an independent third party?

Stockwell DayConservativePresident of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway

Mr. Speaker, in 2002, the Liberals spent $110 million. This year, for the same program, I believe that we have spent $130 million. Of that, $25 million was spent warning Canadians about H1N1. It is clear that we have spent less than the Liberals did eight years ago on the same program.

Mr. Speaker, these Conservatives spent almost three times as much in advertising as the Liberals did in their last year in office. Why does he keep forgetting that point? And the ads do not work.

When asked, “Did you do anything as a result of seeing or hearing this ad?”, 93% of Canadians said no. The ads were so confusing that some respondents thought they were being told to wear hard hats at work. What more will it take to get these Conservatives to do the right thing and agree to arm's-length oversight of government advertising?

Stockwell DayConservativePresident of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that a lot of our advertising that went to the programs that were involved in our overall economic package were advising Canadians about tax rebate programs, and not just the homeowners' rebate but in many other areas. Those programs were accessed at a vigorous rate.

I think, in fairness, when our friends opposite are trying to use comparable figures, they should use the full year. I am sure the member is trying to erase from his memory that the previous government's last year in office was somewhat abbreviated.

Mr. Speaker, the new ombudsman for victims of crime has added her voice to those who support the firearms registry. She has noted that the majority of victims' groups have clearly indicated that the long gun registry should be maintained.

How can the government so offhandedly dismiss the opinion of its own ombudsman for victims of crime?

Mr. Speaker, the long gun registry is wasteful. It is inefficient, and it criminalizes hunters, sportsmen and working farmers. There are no studies that justify the money spent on the long gun registry. Our Conservative government as well as Canadians know that criminals do not register their long guns.

The choice is clear for all MPs. Hon. members can vote to keep the wasteful and inefficient system or vote to scrap it.

Mr. Speaker, a coalition for women’s equality and human rights made up of over 40 organizations is calling on the Conservative government to cancel its plans to dismantle the firearms registry. The coalition reminds us that the registry helps reduce violence, particularly against women.

Why is this government insisting on dismantling the firearms registry, one that saves lives?

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. While we support the licensing of people and the registration of prohibited and restricted weapons, we do not support the wasteful long gun registry. It is time to end the criminalization of law-abiding Canadian citizens. When will the Bloc, the Liberals, and the NDP stop playing games with this issue? Why do they not actually support initiatives that get dangerous repeat criminals off the street and protect law-abiding Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, during the 2008 election campaign, the Premier of Quebec released a list of Quebec's top 10 priorities. Two years later, nothing has been settled. Nothing has been done about the so-called federal spending power. Nothing has been done about control over cultural programs. Nothing has been settled with regard to the gun registry.

How does the Prime Minister explain that two years later Quebec's calls are still unanswered?

Mr. Speaker, our government has done more for Quebec than any other previous government and much more than the Bloc members who are just spectators here and cannot deliver on anything for Quebec.

We have limited the federal spending power and restored fiscal balance with Quebec and with the other provinces. We invited the Government of Quebec to take part in UNESCO. We recognized the nation of Quebec within a united Canada and the list goes on.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said he was open to helping fund an underwater cable between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. After allocating more than $70 billion outside Quebec to nuclear energy and the oil industry, now he is willing to help them distribute hydro-electricity.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have to fund their own power systems the way Hydro-Québec always has?

Mr. Speaker, we have taken unprecedented measures with regard to natural resources. We are in the process of restructuring the nuclear industry, as my colleague alluded to, to make it more viable, to retain high level jobs and to reduce the tax burden on Canadian taxpayers.

We are continuing to move forward with a solid business plan and every project is always assessed according to merit.

Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian Club expected the finance minister to give a speech on the economy. Instead, the minister delivered a partisan rant to a disappointed audience. So let us try to get the minister back to some substance here. Can the minister tell the House how much more money the Government of Canada will be borrowing as of January 1 to pay for the Conservatives' corporate tax cuts?

Mr. Speaker, we are on budget track. That is the difference between us and the members opposite, who want to revoke the tax remissions we are offering to create jobs in this country. We have about 430,000 net new jobs now compared to the 400,000 we lost during the course of the recession. The economic action plan does require a deficit, and we went ahead with that deficit. It has worked for our country, and thank goodness we did it. The member would do well to have listened more carefully to those remarks today.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the minister today say that far too many Canadians are still out of work, which is curious given the fact that he plans to raise job-killing payroll taxes in January, which the CFIB says will kill another 200,000 Canadian jobs.

The fact is that the corporate tax cuts will cost, when fully implemented, over $6 billion every year. That is enough to pay down the deficit and make a real difference. It is also enough to pay for the salaries of 100,000 nurses or to buy 3,000 MRI machines or to pay for two million hip or knee surgeries. How can the minister justify borrowing billions of dollars--

Neither the Liberal caucus nor the Liberal Party has ever encountered a problem they did not believe could best be solved by throwing copious quantities of taxpayers' money at it. They are tax and spendaholics.

Mr. Speaker, to finance their corporate tax cuts, the Conservatives will have to borrow $1 billion this year, $3 billion next year, more than $5 billion the following year, $6 billion the year after that, and so on. These billions of dollars will be tacked onto the Conservatives' deficit and will have to be paid back by Canadians.

Why is the government making Canadians pay for these corporate tax cuts when there are so many other more pressing priorities?

Mr. Speaker, unlike the opposition, we believe that reducing taxes creates jobs. I know those members do not believe that, but if they looked at the tax reductions that were built into the economic action plan and at the stimulus spending that has occurred, they would see that 430,000 net new jobs have been created in this country.

However, they do not believe in job creation. At the same time, they say that they are concerned about unemployment in the country. We are too. That is why we want to create more jobs in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Conservatives' priorities, and their values, for that matter, are not in the right place. We are talking about $6 billion a year borrowed here, $16 billion without calls for tender there, $10 billion for mega-prisons. In the meantime, border crossings are being shut down in Quebec. The Quebec Bridge is rusting away because there is no money. The Champlain Bridge is falling apart, and the forestry industry is getting crumbs.

Why is the Prime Minister so indifferent and incompetent when it comes to spending Canadians' money?

Mr. Speaker, there is a choice here for Canadians. We can continue to follow the economic action plan, see it through to the end of the two-year period, and continue to create jobs for Canadians, or we can be tax and spend members of the coalition parties opposite.

We could be part of that coalition, and we know where that would take Canada. It would take Canada back into the bad days in the 1970s: mounting deficits, mounting public debt, and using taxpayers' money increasingly to pay down interest on the public debt. No sir, we are going to stay the course.

Last year, the member for Welland said that he could not find a single person from Welland who supported the long gun registry. Well, it seems that our search is over. We have found one supporter, and it is none other than the member for Welland, who now says that he does support the wasteful long gun registry.

Could the Minister of Public Safety explain to all members the clear choice we have to make on behalf of our constituents on Wednesday?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question and for her hard work on this file.

The long gun registry is wasteful, it is ineffective, and it criminalizes hard-working farmers and hunters, farmers and hunters who live in the riding of Malpeque. There are no studies that justify the moneys spent on the long gun registry.

Our Conservative government knows that criminals do not register long guns.

The choice is clear for all MPs, including the member for Malpeque. They can vote to keep the wasteful gun registry or vote to scrap it.